State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.F.
235 So. 3d 1066
| La. | 2017Background
- C.F., born 2006, entered state custody in June 2014 after DCFS received reports that father (C.F., Jr.) had used crack cocaine in the child’s presence and was found disoriented; mother died in 2013.
- DCFS filed a petition (Sept. 2015) to terminate father’s parental rights alleging abandonment for failure to support (La. Ch. Code art. 1015(4)(b)) and failure to comply with the case plan (art. 1015(5)).
- Father completed substance-abuse, mental-health, and parenting programs but missed drug screens (deemed positive) and had positive opiate tests; he lived intermittently with adult sons and a daughter-in-law who had open DCFS cases.
- Child has lived with a certified foster family willing to adopt, has expressed desire to remain with them, and is receiving trauma/depression treatment after mother’s death.
- District court found abandonment proved but denied termination as not in the child’s best interest; the court of appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review and reversed, terminating father’s rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory ground for termination exists (abandonment / failure to support) | DCFS: Father failed to provide significant contributions for 6 months, satisfying art. 1015(4)(b) | Father: Reduced benefits and limited income explained nonpayment | Held: Ground proved by clear and convincing evidence (abandonment established) |
| Whether father substantially complied with the case plan (art. 1015(5)) | DCFS: Despite program attendance, father failed to remedy core problems (unstable, unsafe housing; missed/positive drug screens; lack of sustained improvement) | Father: Completed ordered programs, visited, is sober ~1.5 years, and loves child; argued compliance | Held: Father did not substantially comply; district court manifestly erred in finding compliance |
| Whether there is a reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the near future | DCFS: No reasonable expectation given ongoing unstable housing, residence with relatives having open DCFS cases, and inconsistent drug-screening history | Father: Willing to continue treatment; injuries and grief explain gaps; expects additional benefits if child returned | Held: No reasonable expectation of near-term improvement considering child’s need for safe, stable, permanent home |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | DCFS: Child is securely placed, wants adoption, and freeing for adoption serves child’s paramount interest | Father: No abuse alleged; exceptional circumstances (bond, father’s efforts) justify preserving parental rights | Held: Termination is in child’s best interest; district court erred in declining to free child for adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (procedural due process and burden: State must prove grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. J.M., 837 So.2d 1247 (La. 2003) (children’s right to a safe, permanent home; termination appropriate when reunification not possible)
- State in Interest of S.M., 719 So.2d 445 (La. 1998) (focus on whether parent remedied conditions that caused removal)
- State ex rel. L.B. v. G.B.B., 831 So.2d 918 (La. 2002) (procedural requirements for termination and best-interest analysis)